Child Protection and Safeguarding in England Article Review - Essay Example

SAFEGUARDING AND CHILD PROTECTION A Critical Review of the Research Article: Child Protection and Safeguarding in England: Changingand Competing Conceptions of Risk and their Implications for Social Work In this essay, I critically aim at reviewing Parton’s (2011) article on ‘Child Protection and Safeguarding in England: Changing and Competing Conceptions of Risk and their Implications for Social Work’, which featured in the British Journal of Social Work in 2011. This essay will analyse Parton’s methodology and data analysis, his main findings as well as the limitations of his study and the conclusion reached. This will also help review the usefulness of the article in relation to its relevance to the field of research as well as its relevance to future research. Childcare professional all over the world, have always put the interests of the child first, more so when it comes to ‘physical abuse and risk to life’(Hagan, 2006 pg 24). They are right to be so, since, child safeguarding and protection are more of a right than a necessity. Safeguarding covers the aspects of a child spanning from early life to maturity. Safeguarding focuses on the development, factoring potential risks and vulnerabilities while cultivating an atmosphere ‘focused on children as future citizens’ (Parton, 2011 pg 856 – 857). Child protection is quite essential in its own respect, however, safeguarding outweighs protection since it is curative preventive rather than curative. Cleaver et al., (2009 pg 13) firmly insists that children should be put at the center of the safeguarding process. Parton’s (2011) study purposed to shed light on policy development and debate in England, in relation to child protection and safeguarding. He lays emphasis on the significant change in policy over the years. By having this article published by the British Journal of Social Work, with the authority and command it bears in this field, the article asserts it strength and relevance. It is, however, not enough to vouch for an article based on who, or where it featured; there is the need for further scrutiny and research by all stakeholders. This helps influence practice and even policy. In this essay, therefore, I will critically aim at analysing Parton’s article, giving a summary and a critique thereof. Summary Parton’s main purpose was to reflect in a critical way, the developments in policy, as well as debates in England in matters of child protection and safeguarding (Parton, 2011). By emphasizing on policy changes in a span of 20 years, he aimed at putting the state on the spotlight in matters of its contribution to this change. The researcher neither portrays the state as having failed in matters of policy development, nor does he applaud it, rather he reflects on its contribution in this field. The study features two examples of worst-case scenarios in the field of social work, specifically child protection and safeguarding. The death of Victoria Clambie and baby Peter’s is case scenarios that the study uses to reflect the government’s response and action in policy review. Citing critical incidents in the child social welfare arena, the study critically analyses aspects of worst-case practice scenarios. He expounds with supporting literature on how these scenarios helped change or influence policy development, review and enforcement. The study, in a bid to reflect on prevailing hurdles in child protection and safeguarding, uses some extreme examples of child neglect and abuse. The critical example of baby peter (Parton, 2011 pg 865-869) is a worst-case scenario approach, which the writer seems to favour in order to show the extreme need for a policy that approaches child welfare from a safeguarding perspective. Background The writer, by virtue of his profession and educational background, asserts his authority in this field of child welfare. His scope of knowledge and an array of experience in this field are evident. The literary works he has published so far set his experience as ranging from safeguarding children, intervention and surveillance, to child protection. The article states upfront what its purpose is. This is definitive by the definitive title that the writer has chosen. In his brief but precise abstract, he clearly gives a summation of his overall idea of research. Parton (2011) clearly includes keywords: ‘Child protection, safeguarding, risk, social work’ (pg 854) which serves to help a reader or consequent researchers to refer to other similar literary articles. It is of utmost importance that a researcher clearly portrays the purpose and importance attached to the topics chosen. The researcher, therefore, focuses his paper on the participation of the state. He views the input of the state as being chief in changing the landscape of child protection and safeguarding. He views the focus of the state as being solely on the causes of harm to children while also scrutinizing the input of professionals in relation to this. Relationships in families, children and state, are fundamental in child protection and safeguarding. In this perspective, the writer holds the opinion that much has changed over time. The changes, however, aim at improving the state of child protection and safeguarding. He portrays this relationship as not being solely a child-parent affair, but also a state concern. Relationships help develop attachment. According to Bifulco and Thomas (2013), attachment ‘is essential to human well-being, though it was not always so in the past’(pg 2). Parton (2011) focuses on this relationship, putting the participation of sate into review, as well as its implications to the social welfare professional at the end of the policy line. The study draws into question initiatives by the state to enhance and streamline child protection practices and procedures. He especially portrays the state as having down-played the role of the social worker, through its incorporation of emerging technological advancements into the child welfare programme. He is, however, right in citing this mis-calculation by the state since child protection and safeguarding can only be comprehensively developed through negotiated understandings. These understandings require the involvement of all the stakeholders in the child welfare field. Whereas much study in social work in the past had dwelt on what the social worker had done wrong, also called a deficit approach, the researcher deviates from this and puts the state on the spotlight instead. He views the worst case scenario instances as a government’s downside rather than a social worker’s. Whereas the author has used extensive literature to support his study, it is arguable that he commits little time to delve into the study itself. He is more concerned with enacted policies, when and why they were enacted. He barely expounds on the implications, give for the few instances regarding the use of Information Communication Technology. The author, therefore, appears inclined on presenting the research but fails to critically reviewing it in its relation to the field of study. Every researcher’s obligation is to present the literature under review and critically analyze it, identifying key themes while relating how it affects and influences their study. Discussion The researcher draws critical conclusions derived from his main themes as identified in the research. He starts by showing the current trends in family life in the U.K and the world at large. The author clearly shows that there is a problem of great concern in the modern family setup. He cites a lot of authoritative literature to support his arguments. In addition, he is indeed right in this respect. There is no doubt that the family fabric is torn. The author confidently portrays the family as deconstructed and disaggregated. The family no longer claims status as a society’s building block. If at all, the author portrays all family members as inhabiting separate worlds and holding differing interests. The author cites legal and emotional ties as the only cords binding families together. The author concurs with the state that the main concern is the innocent children who silently suffer in the middle of the torn fabric. Parton (2011) views parenting and marriage as no longer tied together (pg 856). In his study, however, I am of the opinion that he has failed to capture the limitations thereof. Whereas in his conclusion he has showed, the failures in the policies developed and implemented, his literature should have covered the possible remedial measures initiated by the state. He, however, concludes by portraying the state as dismayed by the failure of its policies. The study also fails to capture the government’s consideration of ‘two of the most neglected areas in childcare…... emotional and psychological abuse’ (Hagan, 2006 pg 25). While the researcher portrays the dire importance of reviewing his topic, he fails to compare it to other studies as benchmarks of his own conclusions of the study. A reader can not, therefore, offer sound critique of this work, in relation to another literary research work. This does not imply, however that he does not include other research work in his discussion. In my opinion, he does not offer critical comparison as expected. It is the researcher’s obligation to present the recommendations from his study. Alongside this should follow the significance thereof, as well as probable future research in the field of study. The writer has clearly portrayed the state as having realized its error in policies enforced. He also summarizes by indicating the state, which had been vocal on safeguarding children, as reverting to policies based more on child protection. As he put it, the state’s ‘concern was about discussing policy in terms of ‘child protection’ and the word ‘safeguarding’ hardly seemed to appear’ (Parton, 2011 pg 870). The relevance of the research in child protection and safeguarding As I noted earlier, the writer has extensive knowledge in this field. From this, he explicitly defines his research topic as well as providing extensive literature. The writer, therefore, exerts his authenticity and that of his article. He extensively dwells on the state’s view of risks, prevention, and rescue in cases of extreme need. He describes and reviews the literature on the conceptions of risk as pertains to safeguarding in social work. His approach puts the state in the front line in policy development. Most of the instances that he draws on portray the government as striving to develop curative measures at first, then later preventing policy measures. The literature described clearly show that ‘services to safeguard and protect children are underpinned by complex systems of legislation, guidance, regulations and procedures’ (Stafford et al., 2011 pg 106). While the writer aims at portraying the state as playing a leading role in policy development in relation to risks facing children, others view ‘legislative change’ as ‘relatively minor’ (Stafford et al., 2011 pg 106). In this regard, however, many writers are in agreement. This is evident when the review of legislation occurs along the ‘thresholds for intervention in family life to protect children’ (Stafford et al., 2011 pg 106). Parton (2011) holds the opinion that emphasis on a joint venture plays a determinant role in policy and practice. He argues that this should involve participation, prevention as well as family support. As indicated earlier, the state has drawn a thin line between itself, parents and children. However, the author yet feels that policing and coercive intervention require to be minimised while positively supporting parents and children in the community. This study also puts into consideration the social worker. The social worker is the face of the state in the field. The failures of the social worker reflect the failure of the state. The author views this as the reason the state had move to incorporate ICT in the childcare programme. However, this had downplayed the role of the social worker as I had explained earlier. Whatever services the policy makers define, it becomes paramount to include the opinions of the services users thereof. The social worker, in this case, is the main service user and including their opinion will put then at the center of the process. The author is right in drawing attention to the change in the nature of risk to which policy aspires to respond. Instead of just dwelling on risk of abuse and potential harm, safeguarding measure were those that protecting the child’s welfare (Parton 2011). Policies enforcing safeguarding would see the social worker approach the field in a more specific and ‘forensically investigative perspective’ (Parton, 2011 pg 868). The author also elaborates that, safeguarding measures were promoting children welfare, rather than being hindrances to the wider range of support availed to help fulfill the children and family needs. Looking at the literature that the author has cited in his work, I tend to concur with the author’s conclusion and findings at the close of his research. Since he does not define, a line between state funded research and private works on his research topic, his conclusion exempts him of any bias. His third-person approach and criticism of the literature under review gives it relevance while rendering his conclusions credible. Hughes (2009) views an effective safeguarding policy as ‘one that provides clear direction… regarding expected standards of behaviour in dealing with safeguarding issues’ (pg 30). In line with this notion, Parton (2011) perceives a widening concern child protection to safeguarding. According to the author, this is essential in helping usher children to have the best possible life chances and cross the threshold to maturity successfully. If safeguarding fails to capture the well-being of the child under care, then the whole policy will be shortcoming. According to Hughes (2009 pg 30), an effective policy ensures explicit commitment to ‘development of good practice and sound internal procedures’. Hughes further asserts that the policy should be competent enough to cater for referrals, ensuring that professionalism applies in their handling and consideration of the child’s needs. The policy should also emphasise on commitment and dedication on the part of the safeguarding officer. It is not surprising to realize that a safeguarding officer’s job is a full-time commitment. Parton (2011) is confident that, intervention earlier in life helps alleviate a myriad of problems. These problems can occur either in early childhood or later in life. The problems may range from educational, career issues, to crime and anti-social behaviour. Attachment, as I noted earlier, can greatly help in the overall well-being of a child. In this case, attachment to a parent or, better yet, a professional social worker can be due to their responsiveness to the child’s distress, and the consequential provision of care and protection (Bifulco and Thomas, 2013 pg 5). Therefore, safeguarding had to meet five important outcomes: ‘staying healthy and safe; enjoying and achieving; making a positive contribution, and achieving economic well-being’ (Parton, 2011 pg 862). Safeguarding, according to Parton’s analysis of the state policies, was an ambitious programme. It factored in all children regardless of age and status. The driving force behind it was the notion that any child could face any nature of danger at some point in life. This perceived potential vulnerability, therefore, indicated that such a child might require help. The merit of this approach was the ability to deal with problems before they could escalate to uncontainable proportions. This approach would also enable the ‘forensically’ oriented social worker, to penetrate situations where the general perception dismisses the cruel treatment of the very young, and the disabled since society usually assumes this group to be always cared for by the parents. (Cleaver et al., 2009 pg 20). Risk Factors Policy makers were quick to draw on a staggering scale of risk factors. The risks spanned from a large spectrum of approaches. According to Parton (2011), they ranged from ‘future criminal behaviour, violence and drug abuse, but also for educational failure, unsafe sexual behaviour and poor mental health’ (pg 863). From these scenarios, several factors that were paramount in shaping a child’s behavioral outcome were summarised. The factors included ‘low income and parental unemployment; homelessness; poor parenting; postnatal depression amongst mothers; low birth weight; substance abuse and misuse; characteristics that shaped the individual, such as the intelligence as well as community factors, for children who hail from a disadvantaged community’ (pg 863). The author is, however, not exhaustive since there are countless other factors that could comfortably fit into this list. They include low-income families; poor parenting; community factors and many more. Whereas the topic that the author chose was more on risk conceptions, he appears to have dwelt on it from a biased perspective of the state. In order to do his article justice, the author should have sought a wider view of risk conceptions. The role of the social worker, whom, as I earlier indicated, is crucial in this regards, should have featured in the research, as well as how the social worker conceptualizes the risk factors, and their contributions thereof. This is true in regards to Cleaver et al.’s (2009) assertion that in reviewing dominant attitudes in children, adult perception of children become a major consideration (pg 20). In addition to this, and as the author had summarised in his opening part of the article, many families have broken up in the recent past and indeed today. The author portrays divorce, separation and co-habitation, as potential risk situations for a child. This has led to a child growing up in a foster or adoptive family setup. In many instances, a child grows up in a setup where one of the parents, especially the father, is not the biological parent (Parton, 2011). In some cases, this also applies to women, who find themselves bringing up children who are not their own. The step mother/father scenario is considerably the most risky in cases of child abuse, neglect and in extreme cases; death. Good examples of extremity in this matter, are best portrayed in Cleaver et al.’s (2009), in which a four-year-old met his death at the hands of his pre-adoptive parents. In a different case, a six-year-old, who received a fatal blow from the stepmother, died from ‘digestive system collapse’ (pg 20). In light of this, however, it will not do my essay justice in concluding that all foster or adoptive parents are evil or malicious in this regard. There are situations whereby a child has developed and attained productive maturity in a foster home. My point is such well performing cases of adoptive arrangement, could offer great insight in matters of risk conceptualization. The financial factor The author failed to expound critically on what state policy considered in terms of financial security. Whereas he has stated clearly that the New Government had expressed its commitment to child safeguarding and protection, he failed to show the financial side of this commitment. I, however, support the strong opinion of the author that, financial security plays a great role in guaranteeing a safe livelihood for the adopted child. This is true in the sense that, as I earlier showed with supporting literature, a low income family is in danger of having negative outcomes on children. In any family, be it adoptive or otherwise; all a child deserves is to feel appreciated, loved and supported by the parents (Cleaver et al., 2009 pg 23). However, in many instances, many adoptive parents venture in this for the financial benefit associated with it. The government, aiming to make certain that adoptive families are not financially constrained, issues child support to the family through an elaborate social welfare programme. However, with the New Government reducing expenditure, the author sees social welfare grappling with a meagre budget. In this context, one child expressed frustration at the meagre financial support received from the state. The child, who was not living with the biological parents but the nan, lamented that the support received weekly was not enough to feed on, leave alone to clothe him (Cleaver et al., 2009 pg 23). In instances where such occurrences caused danger to the children, investigations pointed out that the children and families were not receiving the help they needed (Stafford et al., 2011 pg 216). Instituted Measures The author demonstrated that the New Government’s aim of developing safeguarding measures was two-fold. It aspired have a working system that allowed intervention, as well as rescue in extreme cases of potential harm. However, others are of the opinion that risk and protection in relation to safeguarding children, are processes, and not fixed states. In this regard, therefore, protection takes a wider span than just shelter from abuse or harm. In early intervention, the state had in mind the education of parents, especially the mother, to become an educator. This would achieve better yields in the life of the child in later years. However, the author fails to capture measures that the state instituted in relation to education. The writer would have done his article justice, had he indicated what the state was doing in relation to ‘safeguarding- training and development strategy’ (Cleaver et al., 2009 pg 14). The author, however, critically examines the results of measures by the state to incorporate, as earlier described ICT in the child-safeguarding programme. He vividly elaborates and gives examples from The Common Assessment Framework (CAF) and ‘…demonstrates an important insight into the way ‘risk’ to children received re-evaluation in the context of ECM and the way practice got re-configuration, as a result, (Parton, 2011 pg 864). The author analyses how these measures sidelined the social worker. Whereas the state may have intended to simplify the process of child monitoring and evaluation, the system ended up with a public outcry of privacy concerns from the youth. The result of these measures also generated a completely new range of responsibilities and challenges. The scope of children who might face abuse widened. Those children who faced the risk of poor outcomes also featured in the complexity of the system. More responsibilities now rested on the practitioner, whom technological advancements had initially sidelined (Parton 2011 pg 865). The author describes vividly how the above scenario changed drastically, with the occurrence of the unfortunate incident of ‘baby Peter’s’ (Parton 2011) death. He critically analyses the measures that the state took into consideration, albeit from the public outcry to curb foreseeable future occurrences of that magnitude. The author shows that the dire measures instituted on the concerned individual in baby Peter’s unfortunate demise were anything but lenient. However, whereas the dire measures instituted against these individual were necessary to send a clear message of the state’s commitment to safeguard children, it emerged that, on the other hand, it was rendering it difficult to recruit more staff into the child welfare programme. Retention of existing staff was also becoming a nightmare. The dire measures, which to an outsider would seem to reflect on the social worker, were suppressing morale, to say the least (Parton, 2011 pg 866). Stafford et al. (2011), also viewed the child protection system in England as being laden with pessimism and distrust, which resulted in lowered morale, in social workers who felt marginalised and unsupported (pg 216). However, State instituted committees saw the blame rest on the existing framework of government policy in matters of children at risk. The author argues that, whereas safeguarding had played center stage in government policies, the events following the case of baby Peter saw the state shift focus towards child protection. The author bares the irony of the situation in which, the importance of the social worker previously sidelined in the incorporation the Common Awareness Framework and ICT, now rediscovered by the state following the death of Baby Peter. The author, however, views these measures as an impediment to the performance of the social worker. Since these measures purposed to monitor and evaluate the status of children who faced potential risk, the author argues that the main point of those already at risk and in need of intervention diminished following the concern with potential risk evaluation practices. The author had initially portrayed society as viewing the social work efforts with great criticism in matters of child protection. In this regard, therefore, the author points out the irony when the same long-criticised field becomes center stage, holding key roles in the child protection area. In this regard, therefore, the author is of the opinion that ‘the improvement in child protection practice was crucially dependent on the rejuvenation of a well trained, respected social work profession’ (Parton, 2011 pg 867). Critically analyzing how government had developed and reviewed policy in the recent past, the author factored in the criticism arising from the above unfortunate even. He draws the conclusion that the faulted the center-focus initially laid on safeguarding as compared to the protection. According to the author, even state realized the immediate need to refocus on child protection measures. In my opinion, the author principally dwells on what the state did or failing to do. My opinion on his deductions is that he should have indicated whether the state was willing to improve outcomes on child safeguarding and protection through inter-agency collaboration as well as supporting integrated structural development (Baginsky, 2008 pg 16). Baginsky (2008) is the opinion that ‘joined up government and inter-departmental co-operation’ would serve to facilitate achievement of government goals. This would be made possible by agencies collaborating with groups and sectors rather than working separately (pg 16). In attempting to describe the failure of state instituted policy guidelines on child safeguarding and protection, the author should have factored in the different arms of government that agree in theory but fail in practice. According to Baginsky (2008), whereas the arms of government did not differ on the importance of ‘co-ordination and valuable practice’, they nonetheless failed recognise ‘how difficult this would be to achieve’ (pg 16). The author faults the New Government as attempting to risk managing everything. This is what the above opinion concerns. I view the involvement of all stakeholders as more beneficial in the overall improvement of safeguarding and protection practice. Attempts at early intervention, which the safeguarding policies aimed at achieving, did not apply to the government alone. If proper collaboration and inter-agency co-operation was developed and achieved, the culture of the defensive approach and risk avoidance as well as blame, associated with the practice of child protection would not have featured (Parton 2011 pg 869). However, with the new system implemented by the state, employing technological advancements in the place of the ‘traditional’ social worker, the same characteristics earlier avoided seemed to play right into the center of the new system. The author, however, does not shy from faulting the state. In his opinion, the New Government was playing a balancing act between discussing policy in terms of child protection and safeguarding. The author sees the state as bent on focusing its attention on child protection policy at the expense of safeguarding. Limited research or lack of relevant credible literature might have left the author unable to establish the final stand of the government. He held the opinion that in many ways, the New Government associated its approach to children and families through the policies and practices that the term ‘safeguarding’ helped establish. In this regard, I perceive the author is portraying the government as intending to refocus its concern towards child protection. The author seems confident that if the above happens, the new arrangements are going to see a whole range of responsibilities placed on the professional social worker. In addition to this, the professional social worker will hold a central role in the child protection programme. However, the author clearly states that this new arrangement is not new, but a confirmation of what was the norm earlier. The author, however, does not fail to point out that the unemployment and social inequalities would be on the rise in the context of a leaner budget, arising from reduced resources. In addition to these, the social worker will deal with a considerable increase in the pressures and demands in the social welfare field. The author is all the same, critically skeptic as to how long the newfound faith and trust in the social worker will persist. The author is especially critical on this issue, given the amount of high-profile media coverage, which accompanies worst-case scenario in child abuse cases. In this regard, I concur with the author, given the heat directed on the social worker in the extreme cases of Clambie and baby Peter. Conclusion In conclusion, I support the efforts of the researcher in bringing out what his article intended. Irrespective of the shortcoming and the strengths of the research discussed and analysed in the paper the authors work, however, remains relevant in the social work field. I also highly consider it useful in terms of social work practice as well as future research. The author remained focused on his intent throughout the research. He was clear and concise while his findings met the intended purpose of the article. By virtue of the author’s perceived as well as evident authority in this field, clearly stated upfront, the research is, therefore, timely and worthwhile. It also scores well in credibility rating since, much of the literature cited is from the government, whose policy development and implementation, the paper was critically analysing. The authoritative literature from other contributors in the field of child social services supports this credibility. The credibility and relevance of the article holds, despite the fact that the author failed to compare different research articles from similar authoritative writers. The approach that the author uses, ‘the worst case scenario’, clearly helps him define the problem, its origins, development. It also helps analyse the measures employed in the period under review. The research, therefore, will play a key role in influencing future studies. It will also greatly help in developing research in the social work field. This will greatly help in restoring the image of the profession, which, as the study has shown, has come under high and in extreme cases, unfair criticism. I highly applaud this study and consider it useful and relevant in its field. It will greatly assist in future research, in this field. It will also prove useful and reliable in development of policy in the future. References Baginsky, Mary. Safeguarding Children and Schools. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2008. Bifulco, Antonia and Geraldine Thomas. Understanding Adult Attachment in Family Relationships Research, Assessment, and Intervention. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2013. Cleaver, Hedy and I Unell. Childrens needs - parenting capacity: child abuse - parental mental illness, learning disability, substance misuse and domestic violence. London: TSO, 2009. Hagan, Joseph F. Bright futures guidelines for health supervision of infants, children, and adolescents. Elk Grove Village, IL.: American Academy of Pediatrics, 2006. Hughes, Liz. Good Practice in Safeguarding Children: Working Effectively in Child Protection. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2009. Parton, Nigel. "Child Protection and Safeguarding in England: Changing and Competing Conceptions of Risk and their Implications for Social Work." British Journal of Social Work 41.doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcq119 (2010): 854-875. Stafford, Anne, et al. Child Protection Systems in the United Kingdom A Comparative Analysis. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2011. Read More